Will Wilson posts some passages on the limits of language (in terms of truth and particularity) over at Postmodern Conservative. I hope this goes in a good direction.
My attempted paraphrasing of the two claims Wilson posts:
(a) Though we must acknowledge that the claims we make about truth come from some particular context, this does not mean that we can simply slip into relativism. We can, and often do, hold these claims with universal intent (to use language that Lesslie Newbigin might have borrowed from someone else). For example, I know that much of the theological language I would use comes off as unintelligible or ridiculous to people that might happen upon this blog. I can't provide a purely rational account of why I use this language and adhere to these principles. This doesn't mean that these principles are only “true for me.” If they are true, they must be “true for everyone.” But there is no neutral ground on which I can vindicate them with recourse to reason alone.
(b) Moving further, I am still responsible for providing the best rational account I can give for why I hold the positions I do. I can still interact with and examine other positions, but it is important that I evaluate them on their own terms to whatever degree I can. There is no rationality as such, as MacIntyre would have it. Even a language explicitly designed in an attempt to provide a transcendent context where religious claims can be evaluated neutrally, it will fail, because it will itself be another particular language.
I'm sure I'm reading my own recent musings into the quotes, but I'd like to see what sort of discussion sprouts out of this. If you have issues with my paraphrasing, please comment here. Otherwise, head on over to PoMoCon and have at at. I've posted a comment there that tries to tie this stuff into blog comments and trolls. (If you get on it quick, maybe you can get in the ring before Freddie, Helen, and/or James do.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey William! I hope you're doing well. Thanks for pointing this out, especially since it touches on a lot of the things we talked about during our mutual stint subbing for John in Nov-Dec.
For ease of reference, my crude paraphrasing of the passage is below:
This is way outside my comfort zone, but the passage intrigues me enough to take a (terribly over-simplified) stab:
Truth is objective and universal. However, we are deeply limited in our ability to communicate that truth. In order to engage in dialogue that accepts a mutually understood description of truth, we must therefore listen carefully to the rationales for various claims of truth. Then, and only then, can we begin to evaluate the validity of a particular claim of truth.
Or, explained in the way one of my favorite professors used to describe it long ago: Although truth most certainly exists, our inability to arrive at anything approaching a common understanding of this truth stems from the simple fact that “we’re not talking about the same thing!”
Post a Comment